NationStates Jolt Archive

I ask that all delegates vote for this proposal, as our world has now come to a point where it can easily support all citizens off the United Nations. here is no longer a need for people to be ill simply becasue they are poor, there is no longer a need for poverty and there is no longer a need for aristocracy. Please don't let your selfish need for money stand in the way of peoples lives.

Description: Although recent measures have been put in place to allow better access to work, health and education to most minorities, there is still a majority which can not benefit from such things.
This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

I believe in and support equal oppurtunities. It is fundamental to a developing and civilised society!

so get voting! it's an essential next step for mankind, gone are the days of selected privilaged up-bringing, we're all human, we all have the right!

I hope that in advocating equal opportunity you are not implying that companies be legally mandated to pay the exact same wages to all employees regardless of job function or performance.

To illustrate the problem with paying everyone the same amount without exception, let us say that Bob and Dan are welders in an auto factory. If Bob can not get paid more than Dan for doing better work than Dan (or be otherwise rewarded by his employer), then there is little incentive for him to do better work than Dan.

I doubt he's suggesting that. I'm a communist, and even I don't support absolutely equal wages for everyone (well, actually I support the elimination of wage slavery altogether, but that's another story). The amount of pay you receive should be proportional with the quality and quantity of the products of your work. However, it must never go below a certain minimum wage (otherwise you end up with situations like in today's Russia, where people who work extremely hard 10 hours a day can't even afford decent food).

But in order to have equal opportunities, it is vital to have free and equal education for all citizens. Otherwise, children are rewarded or punished based on the actions of their parents, which is obviously immoral and unjust.

I hate these "you have the right to" resolutions. To me they mean nothing. Yes you have the right to earn an equal wage but an empoyer also has the right to pay you what ever they want as long as it above the minimum wage. Whether an individual chooses to work for that wage is a matter for that individual.

So, some one please tell me why i should vote for this resolution??

Fine proposal in theory and Constantinopolis is correct to point out the deprivations of wage slavery. As a fellow communist our position is obviously the elimation of poverty and equal opportunity for all to access meaningful and satisfying work.

However, the proposal as a reformist step in this direction is acceptable as long as it is not therefore acceptable to sit back and feel the situation has been resolved.

And no, MalPractia, in most countries an employer does not have the right to pay a worker what they want as long it is above the minimum wage (which is a false and demeaning concept in the first place).

Peoples Commissar
Economic Superstructure Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

And no, MalPractia, in most countries an employer does not have the right to pay a worker what they want as long it is above the minimum wage (which is a false and demeaning concept in the first place).

Peoples Commissar
Economic Superstructure Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

I didn't know that?? What countries force employers to pay out required wages?? (u got me a bit curious on this issue now)

I beleive that there is a need for a proper "living wage" benchmark whereby all the employed should earn enough to cover the basics of life. Many countries have legislated minimum wages, however in almost all cases this amount has fallen far below what one would need to properly support a family as inflation has outstripped minimum wage increases over the years.

But suggesting that all workers should be paid the same regardless of ability, or attitude, or work ethic is frankly just wrong. It removes the drive to succeed if no matter how hard you work you will still only earn the same as the guy in the next cubicle who surfs all day and ducks his responsibilities.

And I should also point out that no matter how much you pay some people, they will still be stupid with the money and buy lottery tickets / the biggest SUV he can / a more expensive home than he can really afford rather than do sensible things like cover health insurance, retirement planning etc.

Which is to say - you can't legislate common sense.

If that is your goal, then coming up with plans for socialized medicine and subsidized education is generally a far more effective solution than assuming that a guaranteed wage will somehow guarantee that parents will properly plan for their children's educations.

I hate these "you have the right to" resolutions. To me they mean nothing. Yes you have the right to earn an equal wage but an empoyer also has the right to pay you what ever they want as long as it above the minimum wage.
The employer makes a one-time investment. From then on, it's the workers who earn all the money of the company. And after a brief period of putting some effort into running the company, the employer begins to live off their work as a parasite, hiring other workers (managers, etc.) to do the thinking for him.

The employees are the ones doing all the work, therefore the employer does not have the right to decide how much of their hard-earned money they actually get to keep and how much of it goes into his own pockets.

The Liberty Network finds it sad and humorous that Nations with 100% income tax rates discuss wage slavery. If you take 100% of the earnings of workers in your Nation you don't have citizens you have slaves.

Just a quick clarification as requested by MalPractia. Australia is one for instance as is the case for New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, Italy...anyway a lot... if you are interested, the Australian system of Awards which cover workers wages and conditions entitlements can be found at:

http://www.wagenet.gov.au

(note: not all the countries that have this system are bleeding heart liberal paradises and communists like myself actually find them restrictive)

Regards
Peoples Commissar
Economic Superstructure Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

I ask that all delegates vote for this proposal, as our world has now come to a point where it can easily support all citizens off the United Nations. here is no longer a need for people to be ill simply becasue they are poor, there is no longer a need for poverty and there is no longer a need for aristocracy. Please don't let your selfish need for money stand in the way of peoples lives.

Description: Although recent measures have been put in place to allow better access to work, health and education to most minorities, there is still a majority which can not benefit from such things.
This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

No. This is the vilest piece of scum I have ever seen. I will explain later.

i've been wondering where those 100% tax rates come from you know. We don't seem to get much in the way of economic legislation, as provided by the game, to have much effect on the matter. No military to speak of, no crime, small police force (well, at least visibly)...we've tried, you know but the tax cut option doesn't even seem to have an impact.

I can only assume in a bemused sort of way that our peoples have no need for money 'cos the state provides for all needs both essential and recreational. People seem to have a lot of computers as there seems to be a recurring pop up of lots of anti-government web sites. oh well.

:oops:

i've been wondering where those 100% tax rates come from you know. We don't seem to get much in the way of economic legislation, as provided by the game, to have much effect on the matter. No military to speak of, no crime, small police force (well, at least visibly)...we've tried, you know but the tax cut option doesn't even seem to have an impact.

I can only assume in a bemused sort of way that our peoples have no need for money 'cos the state provides for all needs both essential and recreational. People seem to have a lot of computers as there seems to be a recurring pop up of lots of anti-government web sites. oh well.

:oops:

In my nation, the tax rate is 100%. Does it matter if I pay them more? I don't think it matters. I can't raise taxes. In addition to that, not everyone is equal. Some people aren't meant to rule. . . Not everyone is cut out for manuel labor either.

well, I do not propose exactly the same wages, obviously there can be a bit of leaway, I propose that the wages come much closer together. Currently while someone earns $3,000 a year or something and has to put their children to work in fields instead of school, treat people ilnness's at home and so forth. Another will earn hundreds of millions, which will undoubtedly sit in a bank, earning interest and destroying the economy. Under this proposal, the first wage and the 2nd wage would more or less merge, making each earn a wage wich they can live on and support their families with.

This resolution see's that not all countries can afford free education and health. Instead it puts the ball into the commercial sectors court. Your ideas that people will only work for money is flawed, people will work for the good of their country. They will see that as they work for their country, the economy will omprove and hence, so will their wages.

There is no longer a need for ghetto's to sit alongside mansions. We can all fall into a similer catagory, not only will this increase employment, health and eductaion, but it will reduce crime and hatred.

Please don't listen to people like Ithuania, who would clearly step over the dead bodies of the poor to earn an extra couple of dollars.

Just a quick clarification as requested by MalPractia. Australia is one for instance as is the case for New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, Italy...anyway a lot... if you are interested, the Australian system of Awards which cover workers wages and conditions entitlements can be found at:

http://www.wagenet.gov.au

(note: not all the countries that have this system are bleeding heart liberal paradises and communists like myself actually find them restrictive)

Regards
Peoples Commissar
Economic Superstructure Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)


We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to understand. Where does it say that if person A does a better job than person B he cannot be paid a higher wage. Where does this site make any mention of maximum wages?

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

Why, if everyone is making an equal wage, would they put any effort into their job? Why would someone want to go to school learn how to be a doctor and then get paid the same as a gas station attendant? The gas station guy would have 5-8 years more work experience, be able to buy his house, get married, buy his car, etc, while the unfortunate doctor-student studied and prepared for his future employment. On the other hand, if he got paid the same equal wage to go to school, why would anyone work at a gas station, I know I could have used an extra 10 years education.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

Why, if everyone is making an equal wage, would they put any effort into their job? Why would someone want to go to school learn how to be a doctor and then get paid the same as a gas station attendant? The gas station guy would have 5-8 years more work experience, be able to buy his house, get married, buy his car, etc, while the unfortunate doctor-student studied and prepared for his future employment. On the other hand, if he got paid the same equal wage to go to school, why would anyone work at a gas station, I know I could have used an extra 10 years education.

But they have to work though otherwise things would be chaotic and they would not be able to support their family.

The student would become a doctor to help the people of his nation and to save lives. People do not become doctors solely for the money, the become doctors to fulfil themselves and help people.

Needless to say, very few people would choose to be a gas attendent all their lives, it would be unfufilling and their life would be less pleasurable.
Indeed, people would seek contentment in their jobs, meaning that many people would choose many different jobs. Whether they look for jobs with no stress or jobs which help the population.

I ask that all delegates vote for this proposal, as our world has now come to a point where it can easily support all citizens off the United Nations. here is no longer a need for people to be ill simply becasue they are poor, there is no longer a need for poverty and there is no longer a need for aristocracy. Please don't let your selfish need for money stand in the way of peoples lives.

Description: Although recent measures have been put in place to allow better access to work, health and education to most minorities, there is still a majority which can not benefit from such things.
This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

Equal wages for all people? So if I'm a bum I can get paid the same as an industrialist who creates industry and lifts millions into the modern era? Right.... :roll:. The problem with resolutions like this is that all your best and brightest will leave your country (or the UN in this case) and you'll digress back into the Stone Age within two or three generations tops.

Your resolution should be retitled: "No opportunity," since if everyone has equal wages then there's no way to get ahead, hence no opportunity.

But in order to have equal opportunities, it is vital to have free and equal education for all citizens. Otherwise, children are rewarded or punished based on the actions of their parents, which is obviously immoral and unjust.

Exactly! Children should be raised and educated by the state... if we let children be raised and educated by their parents then the children of smart or rich parents will recieve extra benefit.

I ask that all delegates vote for this proposal, as our world has now come to a point where it can easily support all citizens off the United Nations. here is no longer a need for people to be ill simply becasue they are poor, there is no longer a need for poverty and there is no longer a need for aristocracy. Please don't let your selfish need for money stand in the way of peoples lives.

Description: Although recent measures have been put in place to allow better access to work, health and education to most minorities, there is still a majority which can not benefit from such things.
This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

Equal wages for all people? So if I'm a bum I can get paid the same as an industrialist who creates industry and lifts millions into the modern era? Right.... :roll:. The problem with resolutions like this is that all your best and brightest will leave your country (or the UN in this case) and you'll digress back into the Stone Age within two or three generations tops.

Your resolution should be retitled: "No opportunity," since if everyone has equal wages then there's no way to get ahead, hence no opportunity.

No opportunity is still equal opportunity. I would rather be poor with the rest of humanity than poor with the rest of humanity except a few people who are atrociously rich.

But in order to have equal opportunities, it is vital to have free and equal education for all citizens. Otherwise, children are rewarded or punished based on the actions of their parents, which is obviously immoral and unjust.

Exactly! Children should be raised and educated by the state... if we let children be raised and educated by their parents then the children of smart or rich parents will recieve extra benefit.

You know, I hear that was really popular in Germany 60-some years ago :roll:

No opportunity is still equal opportunity. I would rather be poor with the rest of humanity than poor with the rest of humanity except a few people who are atrociously rich.

See this is the envy that I'm talking about! The rich help the economy tremendously, and so do the middle-class. An economy where everyone is poor will logically end when everyone is well, poor.

A bum is not employed, hence they would be a matter for welfare, which would be the next step towards human equality, but is not in this proposal. The best and brightest wouldn't leave because they would want to help their country and others. They wouldn't leave to the cespools outside the UN so they could live as kings, spitting on the common man. Well, mabye some would, but it would be to the detrement of mankind, and I think you would see them returning as they lost friends and contact with the outside world.

A bum is not employed, hence they would be a matter for welfare, which would be the next step towards human equality, but is not in this proposal. The best and brightest wouldn't leave because they would want to help their country and others. They wouldn't leave to the cespools outside the UN so they could live as kings, spitting on the common man. Well, mabye some would, but it would be to the detrement of mankind, and I think you would see them returning as they lost friends and contact with the outside world.

Their friends would come along too... you'd have an Atlas Shrugged scenario. The way I see it, the best and brightest are the most important part of society... they DESERVE to live like kings and spit on teh common man... Government should increase education funding, though it should be directed more towards those with natural talent, but healthcare and whatnot, that's their problem if they're too stupid and/or lazy.

so, lets say that YOU came from a poor family, your family can'tt feed you properly, so you develop a disableing disease. This disease prevents you from learning properly, so you end out poor, living in a cardboard box and you die at age 18.
Then, as you lie on your deathbed, the Smiths (30 years old), who are known thugs and never worked in their lives, from accross the road drive along in the Limo's, roll down the window and spit on you.

Yep, your right, what was I thinking? thats the life for me.

A bum is not employed, hence they would be a matter for welfare, which would be the next step towards human equality, but is not in this proposal. The best and brightest wouldn't leave because they would want to help their country and others. They wouldn't leave to the cespools outside the UN so they could live as kings, spitting on the common man. Well, mabye some would, but it would be to the detrement of mankind, and I think you would see them returning as they lost friends and contact with the outside world.

Their friends would come along too... you'd have an Atlas Shrugged scenario. The way I see it, the best and brightest are the most important part of society... they DESERVE to live like kings and spit on teh common man... Government should increase education funding, though it should be directed more towards those with natural talent, but healthcare and whatnot, that's their problem if they're too stupid and/or lazy.

Okay I wouldn't go that far, but many of the best and brightest WILL leave along with their friends... they have the right to spit on the common man just as teh common man has the right to spit back... so long as teh spit doesn't have AIDS or cause measurable phyiscal harm or anything.

Government should privatize schools and give people education vouchers... this would lower costs AND improve education at teh same time and be offered to everyone. The people with the best talents would of course be able to test into the best schools, but they shouldn't recieve outside government help paid for by taxpayer dollars.

Currently the best don't get into the best schools.
Currently the richest get into the best schools.

If your poor, you could be Einstein for all Harvard would care, no cash, no college.

Along with this, the best primary/secondary schools are private, so again, the richer you are, the better the education.

Currently the best don't get into the best schools.
Currently the richest get into the best schools.

If your poor, you could be Einstein for all Harvard would care, no cash, no college.

Along with this, the best primary/secondary schools are private, so again, the richer you are, the better the education.

This is what we have "scholarships" for. Of course a slightly worse student might get into a better school because his parents donated a library, but MORE OR LESS, the smartest people get into the best colleges.

I know a cashier at a local Chinese restaurant... my mom's good friends with her... she is borderline-welfare... her daughter had straight-As in high school and got into U-Penn on a full scholarship and landed $70k job right after graduating.

Many of my mom's friends who are very poor immigrant families end up sending their kids to Ivy Schools. Being rich helps, obviously, but you are exaggerating way too much. Two-thirds of people at Harvard graduated from public schools... that's not that much of an underrepresentation.

Colleges tend not to be for-profit instutitons.

Considering the vast, vast, VAST majority of schools are public, yes it is.
And scholorships are not as common as you make out, half the time they are given to people good at sports.

Add to this all the added stress and worry poor people have while studying and taking their tests (not to mention the bad equipment they have to work with compared to the rich) and you can see how much harder it is for them to get the good grades.

Considering the vast, vast, VAST majority of schools are public, yes it is.
And scholorships are not as common as you make out, half the time they are given to people good at sports.

Add to this all the added stress and worry poor people have while studying and taking their tests (not to mention the bad equipment they have to work with compared to the rich) and you can see how much harder it is for them to get the good grades.

85% of people go to public school
65% of Ivy Leaguers are public school graduates

You'd expect this since many of the smartest people's parents send them to private schools. I go to a private Catholic school (though I attended some of the worst inner-city schools in my state until high school) and the person who is ranked #2 in my class is there on 80% financial aid.

Fewer than 10% of people pay the "price tag" cost for colleges... almost EVERYONE gets FAFSA, scholarships, or some other source of financial aid. The University of Pennsylvania offers need based scholarships to half the students who apply and merit based ones to many other students. Almost everyone with a family income lower than $150,000 and doesn't own five mansions in Switzerland can get FAFSA grants.

I know two people attending Ivy League schools on full scholarships, and several others on partial scholarships.

And what bad equipment? I never attended an SAT prep class in my life and with a $10 book... I got a 1570 on the test, an 790 on the SAT II American History, 780 on the Bio, 760 on the SAT IIc-Math, etc.

wrong, the smartest do not go to private school, the richest do, I have a lot of frieds from private schools and trust me, they are no smarter. However, their parents get them tutors where they need help, they have a catalogue of books for help and their parents don't work 16 hour shifts, allowing the family some stability.

Obviously there will be the odd perrson who can ace all their tests with nothign but a ruler and a pencil, but this does not speak for the masses. And after all, it should be a country of the people for the people. Not of the people for the select few who can afford it.

wrong, the smartest do not go to private school, the richest do, I have a lot of frieds from private schools and trust me, they are no smarter. However, their parents get them tutors where they need help, they have a catalogue of books for help and their parents don't work 16 hour shifts, allowing the family some stability.

Obviously there will be the odd perrson who can ace all their tests with nothign but a ruler and a pencil, but this does not speak for the masses. And after all, it should be a country of the people for the people. Not of the people for the select few who can afford it.

80% of America is middle-class, that's not exactly the "select few"

In private colleges, the smartest get in. The school with teh HIGHEST acceptance into Ivies in teh country is a PUBLIC school by the name of Roxbury Latin in New York State... it sends 40% of its students to the Ivies every year. Even Andover, traditionally considered our biggest snob school, only sends 15% of its students to Ivy League schools.

The average income of Ivy League families at AT MOST $10,000 higher than in mainstream society.

And the average income of college families in general is only a few thousand dollars higher than in mainstream society... but most Americans don't graduate college so of course they're going to be poorer.

And also, very few people with SATs higher than 1500 have gone to SAT prep classes... it's mostly natural and acquired intelligence.

EU-topia looks around NationStates for the United States of America......
The entire world isn't the United States, I know it may come as a shock to most Americans, but there ARE other countries out there.

and there, you admitted it, families who send kids to college are richer than the others. Even a few thousand over the average could be $30,000 (don't know the average american wage) higher than the poor. And as you, yourself said. The better the college, the richer the students. It is this kind of descrimination we need to get rid of.

EU-topia looks around NationStates for the United States of America......
The entire world isn't the United States, I know it may come as a shock to most Americans, but there ARE other countries out there.

and there, you admitted it, families who send kids to college are richer than the others. Even a few thousand over the average could be $30,000 (don't know the average american wage) higher than the poor. And as you, yourself said. The better the college, the richer the students. It is this kind of descrimination we need to get rid of.

Parents who graduated college are more likely to send their kids to college because they place greater emphasis on education.

There will obviously be an income gap between Ivy Leaguers and people who never went to college... but it isn't significant enough to call "discrimination". There are many poor people who through their hard work get into the Ivies. Penn offers need-based aid to over half of its students. Dartmouth ot 45%, Harvard to nearly two-thirds, Princeton to about two-thirds, etc. THE POOREST PERSON (who is not mentally handicapped and naturally ingelligent and diligent) IN THE COUNTRY AND GET INTO HARVARD IF HE WORKED HARD ENOUGH.

The reason other countries are poor is because they are socialist. To quote Julius Nyrere, the former socialist president of Tanzania and leader of several black African groups (an all around respectable guy, actually, even though he was a socialist): "I failed. Let's admit it."

Whereas Hong Kong which has no natural resources, was colonized by Europeans, is plagued by piracy, is one of the most overcrowded places on Earth, but has the most capitalist economic system known to man, has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

But you are right about one thing. Most poor people don't go to Ivy League schools. Most rich people don't either.

I ask that all delegates vote for this proposal, as our world has now come to a point where it can easily support all citizens off the United Nations. here is no longer a need for people to be ill simply becasue they are poor, there is no longer a need for poverty and there is no longer a need for aristocracy. Please don't let your selfish need for money stand in the way of peoples lives.

Description: Although recent measures have been put in place to allow better access to work, health and education to most minorities, there is still a majority which can not benefit from such things.
This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

The right to a living wage is the right to equality of result, which necessarily results in a regression of living standards to the lowest common denominator. Except of course for the police state that would be needed to enforce something so obviously outside of the what humanity really wants. More utopian babble from delusional socialists. It has never worked and it will never work.

Greed has nothing to do with it.

Eli

Mouth of The Elians

"The natural state of man is capitalism. Any other type of market condition is a way for losers to try to equalize their shortcomings."

The natural state of man is living in caves with your tribe, hunting wilder beast and killing each other. I like to think we've evolved since then. It has never worked becasue it has always been under a dictatorship. The same way capitalism doesn't work under a dictatorship. Equal wages may lower the living standards for the very rich, but for the majority of the population living standards would be raised significantly. After all, the state should look after the majority most of all, since it is them that make up the country.

The way you refer to the poor as "losers" says a lot about you.

Look EU-Topia even if we evenly distributed all of the money in teh world NOW, I would bet that the same people who used to be rich will be rich again in ten years... because people who are rich get rich through smart investments... NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN BILLIONIARE INHERITED HIS FORTUNE. And those people who would've gotten to Ivy Schools without equal money would STILL have gotten into them... because their parents went to college, and if your parents went to college they can do things like help you with your homework and place more emphasis on education.

The only way you could possibly get around this is by having all children be brought up by the State. That wouldn't be too popular though.

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Just because your parents go to college doesn't make them good parents. And with equal pay, more parents can go to college.

I weould bet everything I have that everyone who is in Ivy league wouldn't have got there with equal pay. There would have been a lot of (currently) poor people getting better opportunities and therefore getting better grades and pushing the wealthy out of those positions.

I ask that all delegates vote for this proposal, as our world has now come to a point where it can easily support all citizens off the United Nations. here is no longer a need for people to be ill simply becasue they are poor, there is no longer a need for poverty and there is no longer a need for aristocracy. Please don't let your selfish need for money stand in the way of peoples lives.

Description: Although recent measures have been put in place to allow better access to work, health and education to most minorities, there is still a majority which can not benefit from such things.
This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.

The right to a living wage is the right to equality of result, which necessarily results in a regression of living standards to the lowest common denominator. Except of course for the police state that would be needed to enforce something so obviously outside of the what humanity really wants. More utopian babble from delusional socialists. It has never worked and it will never work.

Greed has nothing to do with it.

Eli

Mouth of The Elians

"The natural state of man is capitalism. Any other type of market condition is a way for losers to try to equalize their shortcomings."

Well Put Eli! It is refreshing to see some common sense and logic on these forums.

There is a dramatic difference between equal opportunities and equal outcomes. You can work to ensure equal opportunity but you cannot guarantee equal outcome (that requires individuals to get off their butt regardless of their station in life and not relent in the pursuit of dreams and goals). This proposal is about equal outcome and not equal opportunity. You appear to be attempting to create a Utopian environment…good luck but it is not one that can simply be legislated.

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Just because your parents go to college doesn't make them good parents. And with equal pay, more parents can go to college.

I weould bet everything I have that everyone who is in Ivy league wouldn't have got there with equal pay. There would have been a lot of (currently) poor people getting better opportunities and therefore getting better grades and pushing the wealthy out of those positions.

Why would equal pay put more people through college? If anything it would put LESS people through college since there's less incentive to go to college. My mom worked on minimum wage while my dad went through college (with financial aid, and eventaulyl he got 100% of his tuition back because of a U-Delaware policy about straight-As.)

And SOME of the people who go to Ivy League, I'd say 5%, 10% at the most, since 20% percent don't recieve any sort of financial aid or scholarships, wouldn't have gotten in with equal pay, but the vast majority still would've.

Once again, the only way to truly have equal opportunity is to have all children brought up by the same parent who loved them all equally (in teh case of the state, who doesn't love them at all). Just like the only way to have true equality is to kill everyone. But I would rather be unequally living than equally dead. I would rather be unequally rich (Capitalism, Hong Kong) than equally poor (socialism, Cuba).

This equal Pay thing is a load of crap.

If you work harder, better and more efficiently than another person in the same job, shouldn't the employer have the right to pay that individual more?

Secondly when the more wealthy parents send their child to private school to get a better education than those who go to public schools they do so because they do not trust the state to give their child the education they deserve. I don't think parents should be condemned for doing so but instead the governing state should strive to improve the standard of public education so that the more well off will not need to send their children to private school. Maybe then, ivy league schools would have a higher representation of state school students attending their establishment.

Don't get me wrong here. I neither went to private school, or am i well off. I just believe that if you want anything out of life you have to work for it. This equal pay deal will destroy that ethic.

However, introducing a minimum wage that must be payed for certain jobs is a good idea, but those wage boundaries should be left to the individual state and not the UN.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would liek to say, that despite many irritating sayings otherwise, all people are not created equal. There are many differences between people, some are musicians, some are good at math, or science, or physical activities, some can create great art, etc. The tendency of today's society to calim all are equal is wrong. This resolution appears to be based on that flawed reasoning. Unfortuantley, with the population of the world as it is today, you cannot pay everyone equal, and just hope that all the necessary jobs will be carried out. Yes, in our last example we mistakenly used the example of doctor, when perhaps we should have used a less humanitarian job with equal or less stress. We at the People's Republic Of Amyth suspect, that if all are paid equal, we will have a lot of artists, and musicians and other talent-based jobs, because there will be not economic pressures to do things they are talented at, or even just good at. We suspect that everybody will just do what they want to do. This is not good, because, there are many people who want to do things in which they have no talent.

We the PROA would also like to add, before the srom starts, that not all jobs are created equal.

This resolution see's that not all countries can afford free education and health. Instead it puts the ball into the commercial sectors court. Your ideas that people will only work for money is flawed, people will work for the good of their country. They will see that as they work for their country, the economy will omprove and hence, so will their wages.


No offence, but if the country can't muster the resources to afford free education and health, then there is too small a tax base to do so. Which means that there is no way you could legislate a living wage high enough to do so either.

Because somebody has to pay for it. If you can legislate the companies to pay the workers enough to cover those costs, then you could also tax back the money to enure that it is spent on those items rather than just hope that all parents will be smart enough, and fiscally responsible enough to do so themselves.

And while some people might be willing to work for the country, the most gifted are likely to want some extra back in their pockets for the extra that they contribute. Otherwise why bother? Because, let's face it, not everybody in the country will be so idealistically motivated.

There is a reason communism collapsed, and a reason why free enterprise has had dificulty enstilling itself in much of the former USSR. Because there is a whole generation of folks who were brought up to beleive that they would earn the same lousy pay as the next guy no matter how hard they worked. It killed the initiative of a nation.

In reality, people will generally work harder for personal benefit than for collective benefit, and so pay for performance will always do a better job of growing your nation's economy as people see that they can benefit those they love the most - their families - through extra effort.

The natural state of man is living in caves with your tribe, hunting wilder beast and killing each other. I like to think we've evolved since then. It has never worked becasue it has always been under a dictatorship. The same way capitalism doesn't work under a dictatorship. Equal wages may lower the living standards for the very rich, but for the majority of the population living standards would be raised significantly. After all, the state should look after the majority most of all, since it is them that make up the country.

The way you refer to the poor as "losers" says a lot about you.

The way you assume that equal distribution of resources by the state will equalize outcome says a lot about you. Human beings are naturally competitive, hence this discourse, and someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. These are facts that can't be brushed aside by mere 'Utopian style dreaming'. This redistribution will cause the achievers, who produce the wealth anyway, to lose motivation and living standards go down for all. Socialism does not work every time it is tried, only free markets with free capital works.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to point out that, while we are against the resolution, we are socialist. Socialism has many good points, the only problem is that some countries took it to extremes. Do you really believe that capitalism, if taken to those same extremes would result in a benefitial society. Capitalism is all about making money for the corporations, if all the laws restricting the ability of corporations were removed, we do not believe the world would be a better place, and it is the same way with socialism. There are however socialisms that work, Sweden, Germany, Canada, France, and many other countries have social aspects to their country and they seem to be working.

I can see that there is too much opposition to this, so I will revise it to a less extreme version and re-try. However, (now that I'm not dieing through lack of sleep) I must pull Global Market up on his figures. "80% of America is middle class", this could not be more wrong.
One Third of America is below the poverty line, One Quarter of the UK is below the poverty line. These are facts, not speculation, so while the visable masses are middle class in their big houses, the hidden masses, in their doorways, are dieing from starvation and illness.

We the PROA would whole-heartedly support a well written living wage legislation.

I can see that there is too much opposition to this, so I will revise it to a less extreme version and re-try. However, (now that I'm not dieing through lack of sleep) I must pull Global Market up on his figures. "80% of America is middle class", this could not be more wrong.
One Third of America is below the poverty line, One Quarter of the UK is below the poverty line. These are facts, not speculation, so while the visable masses are middle class in their big houses, the hidden masses, in their doorways, are dieing from starvation and illness.

1/3 below the poverty level?? Where did you get that obvious falsehood the COMINTERN?

I've heard this from many reliable and independant sources.

The CIA world fact book 2002 puts the US poverty-line at 13%

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin/NAM

CIA? The war has shown how reliable they are.
I look for indepedndant sources since the CIA will obviously be biased towards the governments side, which shows less poverty than there really is.

CIA? The war has shown how reliable they are.
I look for indepedndant sources since the CIA will obviously be biased towards the governments side, which shows less poverty than there really is.

Newsflash: The information in the CIA World Factbook is compiled from census data and public records. If they were just making these numbers up, people would notice. Quite frankly, all the figures I've seen which come from reputable independent sources tell pretty much the same story the CIA statistics do. If you actually care to NAME some of the "independent source" you've taken your numbers from, then please do so. Otherwise, you might be wise to just admit your mistake and find a more tenable position to defend.

I ask that all delegates vote for this proposal, as our world has now come to a point where it can easily support all citizens off the United Nations. here is no longer a need for people to be ill simply becasue they are poor, there is no longer a need for poverty and there is no longer a need for aristocracy. Please don't let your selfish need for money stand in the way of peoples lives.

Description: Although recent measures have been put in place to allow better access to work, health and education to most minorities, there is still a majority which can not benefit from such things.
This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

What I ask is simple. It is the right for everyone to earn an equal wage, thus allowing all our children equal rights and equal chance to make something of their life.
Let greed not triumph over human decency.


Since we will have equal opportunity now I will quit my job and let you suckers that work for a living support me, after all I get as much as you.


What depravity.

Does no one here actually read the proposal? it's equal wages, NOTHING TO DO WITH WELFARE! You don't work, you don't get an equal wage, jeez.

Does no one here actually read the proposal? it's equal wages, NOTHING TO DO WITH WELFARE! You don't work, you don't get an equal wage, jeez.

Okay fine I'll "work" in a "job" where I can "produce" "goods" and "services" that are "useful" to society and can be "sold" on the "market" for an equal "wage". Fair?

Does no one here actually read the proposal? it's equal wages, NOTHING TO DO WITH WELFARE! You don't work, you don't get an equal wage, jeez.

Okay fine I'll "work" in a "job" where I can "produce" "goods" and "services" that are "useful" to society and can be "sold" on the "market" for an equal "wage". Fair?

Maybe I could get some free bread too... I like Beef on Rye... and circuses... bread isn't much use without watching foreigneres hack each other to death with swords.

This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

I agree, and for that reason, I will support your resolution to forbid poor people from reproducing. Any babies born to poor people after the passage of said resolution should be taken immediately from the parents and given to rich families who either can't have children or simply want another one. Good move, EU-topia.

eh........thanks?

This majority is the poor. I say that it is against someone’s human rights to be born into a poor family, and hence be at a disadvantage to richer families their entire life.

I agree, and for that reason, I will support your resolution to forbid poor people from reproducing. Any babies born to poor people after the passage of said resolution should be taken immediately from the parents and given to rich families who either can't have children or simply want another one. Good move, EU-topia.

A better idea would be to stop rich people from reproducing. Thus everyone will still be on a level playing field though fewer people would have their right to reproduce violated. Then we could take all the money that would be inherited by snobby kids (as well as the middle-class's money) and give it to bums and other differently advantaged people.

A better idea would be to stop rich people from reproducing. Thus everyone will still be on a level playing field though fewer people would have their right to reproduce violated. Then we could take all the money that would be inherited by snobby kids (as well as the middle-class's money) and give it to bums and other differently advantaged people.

But then we've raised the number of children whose right not to be born into a poor family is being violated to 100%. Of course, after we take all the money from those with enough of it to accomplish anything productive, who will establish the liquor stores and crack dens for the bums to spend their money? Of course, the middle-class will disappear once they are no longer drawing paychecks from the "money that would be inherited by snobby kids", so that's a non-issue. No, we definitely need to attack the problem at its root and prevent any more babies from being born to poor people. Just think of the economic boom with all the new jobs created by the new forced-sterilization industry! I plan to get rich selling scissors.

CIA? The war has shown how reliable they are.
I look for indepedndant sources since the CIA will obviously be biased towards the governments side, which shows less poverty than there really is.

At least we named our source...

I've heard this from many reliable and independant sources.

Try looking at US Census Dept data instead.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-213.pdf

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to point out that, while we are against the resolution, we are socialist. Socialism has many good points, the only problem is that some countries took it to extremes. Do you really believe that capitalism, if taken to those same extremes would result in a benefitial society. Capitalism is all about making money for the corporations, if all the laws restricting the ability of corporations were removed, we do not believe the world would be a better place, and it is the same way with socialism. There are however socialisms that work, Sweden, Germany, Canada, France, and many other countries have social aspects to their country and they seem to be working.

The Free Land of Tipayimisoowin throws it's full support behind the People's Republic of Amyth.